West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-09-16

ing prayerfully considered by the
clergy. To form a correct judg-
ment on this subject and place the
church 10 a position that will in
crease her influence and prosperity
is, and should he, the first object ola
minister. But there can be no in
telligent discussion of the question
until we separate the province Of the
Church from the province of the Leg
islature. We meet earnest christ
ians asking the church to endorse,
and act with, whichever political par
ty pledges itself to prohibition, but
such persons do not consider that
they are asking the church to do a
thing outside of its jurisdiction.
The church appeals to conscience:
she cannot accomplish her holy OBJ
iects by legal compulsion. The
church should pray God to incline
men to temperance, but to preserve
her influence and her power for good,
she must not substitute legal COM
pulsion for religious teaching. She
must not confess that religious teach
ing and church influence is failure
and that therefore she endeavOrs to
accomplish a good work by legal CO.
ercion. For the church to ally her.
self with 4 political party in order
to accomplish legislation would in
jure religion without helping the
cause.
There is wide difference between
a civil law and a moral precept. The
command of Legislature, is one
thing; the injunction of religion is
very different thing. The legislator
inquiries whether public policy will
be promoted; the minister inquiries
whether the act is sinful. Whether
public policy requires legislation to
forbid the manufacture and sale of
liquor, is one question; whether
drinking is a sin, is a very different
question. If the abuse of liquor
were unattended by any material,
physical or social ill-consequences,
then there would be no ground for
governmental interference, although
the abuse of liquor is q grievous sin.
The many laws against various in
decencies are made, not because such
indecencieS are wicked, but because
moral corruption entails social dam
age. To drink whiskey might be as
wicked as the objectionable sin, but
if did no social damage the Leg
lslature could not interfere.
The advocate Of prohibition must
demonstrate that the liquor traffic
damages society and, as Il matter of
public policy, its manufacture and
sale should be forbidden. But the
advocate of prohibition cannot deny
that although the number of persons
who abuse liquor is very large, yet
[ the number who do not abuse it is
infinitely larger. A man who never
drinks To excess does not damage
society. 1--WE do not now speak of
/ the effects of his eXample,-that will
be considered hereafter; the present
, point is. that the community is
not injured by the moderate drinker;
and the moderate drinkers very far
outnumber those who drink to excess.
| The moderate drinkers do not hurt
themselves, they do not injure society
and they largely outnumber drunk
ards. The question then is, wheth
err the evils resulting from the abuse
ofliquOr is so great us to require the
adjustment of all drinking? The
/ question is, whether 4 portion of So
I ciety is so dangerously vicious in its
abuse of liquor that the only remedy
is to be found in torbidding to the
much larger portion of society any
use Of it whatever? This question
must be answered so as to satisfy
the good sense and the general opin-
ion of society or else prohibition
will not be of any permanent utili-
ty
When the general sense Of society
is agreed that public policy requires
the adjustment of liquor, a law
abolishing it will be enforced as nat
urally as are laws against stealing
and smuggling. But until there is
a general and controlling sentiment
in favor of such law, prohibition
would be a positive moral damage,
the constant cause of lies and
evasions; and these lies and eva
| sions. would lessen the present dis